A.P. Herbert's Misleading Cases

An attempt to catalogue the appearances of these famous spoofs of
British legal procedure, as collected in books by A.P. Herbert himself
(later Sir Alan Herbert). Most, though not all, were first published in
Punch magazine. "The first Case – I think it was The
Reasonable Man – Fardell v. Potts – appeared in
Punch in 1924," Herbert wrote in A.P.H: His Life and Times
(1970). Note that several cases from the first three collections were
retitled as well as revised for the omnibus volume Uncommon Law.
– David Langford

"Reprints" against book titles in the above table refers
to Cases taken from previous A.P. Herbert collections, not to the
original magazine/newspaper appearances. In the introduction to WW,
Herbert reckoned that he had written some 150 Misleading Cases in all
(and at least one more followed – see below). This implies that
about twenty have never been collected in book form. It may be worth
scouring old issues of Punch and the once regular anthology
volume Pick of Punch for more. For example, Pick of Punch
1962 (London: Arthur Barker, 1962) ed. Bernard Hollowood includes
Regina v. Strool – see Bardot
M.P.? below. See also the final list on this page,
Known Uncollected Cases.

Not every case appeared in Punch. A prefatory note in MC
states: "These cases (with one exception) were recorded in the
legal columns of Punch ..." – case and periodical
both unspecified. The corresponding note in MMC records two
exceptions, Lavender v. Ladle in the Week-end
Review and In re John Walker, periodical unspecified; SMMC
has one exception, "Not a Crime", periodical
unspecified. The CLC note claims one exception, unspecified,
and BMP says only that "Most of the cases were
originallly reported in Punch." Herbert's new
introduction to the 1969 edition of UL mentions a 1967 case
which Punch refused "because they had recently made a
resolution to have no more jokes about mini-skirts": instead it
was printed in the Evening Standard, and reported as straight
news in America, France and Italy.

In GC and WW the case details (Rex v.
Haddock, etc) appear after the descriptive title rather than before,
but it seems more sensible to follow a consistent style throughout.
Original publication dates of cases appear in the collections CLC,
LBL (once) and WW only – hence the many undated
cases below. My thanks to Kim Huett for tracing the original Punch
publication dates of four cases collected in MC, and reporting
the magazine's numbering of these cases: XII Legacy To the Liberal
Party in Volume CLXXII #4470, 9 March 1927; XVII Rex v. The
Licensing Justices of Muddletown in Volume CLXXII #4484, 15 June
1927; XVIII Is Marriage Lawful? in Volume CLXXIII #4488, 13
July 1927; and XXI Is a Golfer a Gentleman? in Volume CLXXIII
#4492, 10 August 1927.

Cowan's Case: The Speaker of the House of Commons v. The
Metropolitan Magistrate for Westminster: Sauce for the Goose
[omitted from UL. The point of law, concerning the legality of
drinking outside permitted hours on the privileged premises of the
House of Commons, is very differently treated in UL as Rex
v. Haddock: Crime in the Commons. Herbert's real-life
test of the law had altered the position.]

Board of Inland Revenue v. Haddock: Why is the House of
Lords? – Punch, 9 August 1933

Tristram v. the Moon Life Assurance Company: Why is the
Coroner? – Punch, 31 May 1933

Haddock v. Mogul Hotels, Ltd: The Law of Banquets
[in UL as The Last Glass]

Rex v. George, MacDonald, Maxton, and Others: Corrupt
Practices

Willow v. Capital Pictures Corporation: What is a
Judge?

Rex v. Boot, Mallock, and Tate: Triumph of Boot
[omitted from UL; similar to Are Constables Quite Nice?
aka Exploits of Boot]

Rex v. Jackson: Triumph of Rutt [in UL as
Are Suicides Insane?]

Bold v. the Attorney-General: What is the Crown?

Tripp v. The Milko Corporation, Ltd.: The Echoing Horn

Haddock v. Jones: Triumph of Haddock [in UL
as Law of Libel Reformed]

Rex v. the Minister for Drains: The Man Tax [in
UL as The Employment Tax]

* WW cases marked with an asterisk include notes added since
their appearance in a previous collection. These mostly record later
relevant cases in real life, up to 1966. The extra material in Good
Old Scire Facias! covers Herbert's actual plan to have the Arts
Council wound up for apparently excluding Literature from its "fine
arts" remit.

More Uncommon Law: Being More Misleading
Cases combining Bardot M.P.? and Codd's Last Case (Methuen, 1982)